By Mary Goetsch,
Aurora, Ill.
Ask Grandpa column invited readers to submit opinions on the American Justice System in the June 30 edition.
The jury system needs to be pared down in order to cope with court backlog and have a sustainable budget. Grandpa’s jailbird writer stated a one-person jury is preposterous; he was appreciative of his trial-by-12-member jury and just punishment. My revised idea: A three-person jury comprised of one chosen by defense, one chosen by prosecution, and the third chosen by the judge. The roster would be professional jurors and could be paralegals, or possibly citizens with bar-approved training and in service on a full-time basis. Skill level would be high enough to dispense with jury instructions and lengthy voir dire questioning of prospective jurors. The purpose of such a radical change is to expedite both the criminal and civil justice systems.
The divided opinion on elimination of cash bail, electronic monitoring, increasing violence on the streets, police not intervening for fear of reprisal, the gray area of what justifies lethal defense, and fewer citizen gun-restrictions, is the basic issue of law enforcement limited by freedom of citizens from false imprisonment. Citizens cannot be kept in jail without due process. The problem is, we can’t have speedy trials because the process is too lengthy. The lengthy COVID shut-down has compounded the problem of crowded prisons and how to decide whom to release on bond and who must be locked up during pre-trial waiting. There is more pressure on prosecutors to offer plea deals the accused would take to get out. Pleading to a deal is a worse injustice; to a psychologically less- healthy population where there is less ability to tolerate delayed gratification and ability to persevere, more will just give up and plead guilty.
Perhaps readers understand the marshmallow psychology experiments on toddlers. Those who wait receive more marshmallows than if they took their prizes immediately. The ability to delay gratification carried into greater success in adulthood. The incarcerated, on the other hand, tend towards immediate gratification and poor impulse-control. If the court system were streamlined and efficient, the ideal could be few instances of keeping violent offenders locked up while they wait.
Another way to pare the court docket is to dis-incentivize litigation. The U.S. is known for being lawsuit-happy. Any citizen can sue any other private citizen, in theory.
Having a uniform confidence level in adjudication might lend itself to combining criminal and civil courts. Judges could be more flexible and the entire process greatly simplified with professional jurors.
Another way to digest my wild idea (which would only work if the entire Congress could change the Constitution, a huge piece of magic) is to think about professional jurors the same as any other occupation. We go to professionals for everything except our hobbies, or the activities of daily living (cooking, cleaning, transportation, bookkeeping). No one learns a skill only to use it once. Justice is a skill and profession.
In hindsight, it should seem preposterous to walk participants into a jury box off the street. We do it only because the system always has been that way and the made time investments. In theory it is not possible to have unbiased jurors. Those want accused offenders jailed awaiting trial means the public believes they are guilty as charged. If we really believe innocent until proven guilty, all accused would be allowed out on bond. It would incentivize society to streamline the justice system, pronto.